Harald Heinrichs · Pim Martens Gerd Michelsen · Arnim Wiek Editors

3 How Is ‘Sustainable Landscape Development’ 
Scientifically Tackled?
The field of sustainable landscape development is located at the interface of several 
disciplines, to name just the three most essential: (i) landscape ecology, (ii) urban 
and landscape planning and (iii) rural and regional sustainable development. The 
Fig. 17.1 The six Es of 
sustainable landscape 
development: environment, 
economic, equity, 
aesthetics, experience and 
ethics (Musacchio 
2009
, 
p. 998)
17 Sustainable Landscape Development

---

210
first deals with questions about ‘how landscape structure affects the functioning of 
landscapes’ (Wiens
2013
) and their ecosystem services, i.e. emphasis on analysis of 
the biophysical processes; the second aims at ‘human and ecological communities 
that are resilient, sustainable, and less vulnerable to disturbance events’ (Gobster
2011
, p. 315), i.e. emphasis on planning and management; and the third focuses on
(economic) development, including a critical discourse around sustainable develop-
ment itself (Marsden and Sonnino 
2008
), and addresses, for instance, the role of 
power and knowledge (Bruckmeier and Tovey 
2008
). Classical landscape ecology
focuses both on spatial patterns and ecological processes and largely excludes peo-
ple or sees them primarily as causing landscape change.
A proposal for a bridging concept between the more natural and the more social 
scientifically oriented landscape perspectives has been presented by Jianguo Wu: 
‘landscape sustainability is the capacity of a landscape to consistently provide long- 
term, landscape-specific ecosystem services essential for maintaining and improv-
ing human wellbeing’ (Wu
2013
, p. 1013). Termorshuizen and Opdam (
2009
) in a 
similar vein introduce the concept of ‘landscape services’(see Fig.
17.2
). ‘Landscape
Fig. 17.2
Landscape functions as a bridging concept between the physical landscape system and
the human values attributed to them (Termorshuizen and Opdam
2009
, p. 1040)
M. Stauffacher and P. Krütli

---

211
services’ translate landscape functions into ‘services’ valued by people. In contrast
to the very popular concept of ‘ecosystem services’, Termorshuizen and Opdam
claim that the landscape level is actually better suited to local planning than the 
generally much larger scale of ecosystems. And they further stress that the term 
landscape is as well used by social scientists and legitimate for local people. These 
perspectives share the idea of multifunctionality (de Groot 
2006
). Production, regu-
lation and habitat functions are generally distinguished and focused empirically; the 
concept is thus ‘fundamentally ecocentric, having a primary concern for the func-
tioning of the earth systems’ (Selman
2009
, p. 47). In contrast, the anthropogenic 
dimension needs to be emphasised (Bolliger et al. 
2011
). Cultural services are often
mentioned in this regard, but their role remains vague and disputed (Daniel et al. 
2012
; Kirchhoff
2012
).